DK

I was extraordinarily angry when I started blogging in January ’95.

You’ve been blogging for twelve years?! Was the internet invented back then?

I do admire this sort of openmindedness. It just shows that accusations of ‘fascism’ towards the global-warming zealots are so very unfair. OK – so they refer to people who disagree with them or show on iota of scepticism as ‘global warming deniers’, ‘antichrist’, etc. – but hey, if you feel reeeally, reeeeally strongly enough about something obviously that demonstrates that you are right and everyone else is wrong, doesn’t it? I mean, animal ‘rights’ supporters feel so very, very strongly about their cause that they’re willing to maim and murder other human beings in pursuit of it – quite right, too. So why are the eco-fundamentalists being so restrained? Why stop merely at trying to trash, smear or gag your opponents?

Even leaving aside that [New Scientist]’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

[sigh]

As I said, the New Scientist wholeheartedly and uncritically endorsed the Stern Review when a number of economics bloggers had debunked it on the day it was released. These reasons had to do with both economics and science and were based on the fact that it totally ignored the IPCC’s A1 series of scenarios, as well as adding in a number of extraneous factors and double-counting.

I am surprised, Sunny, that with your economics background, you didn’t pick up on any of this, though one wouldn’t necessarily expect you too.

However, one would expect the New Scientist to look rather more closely; as it is, they have destroyed (in the eyes of myself and a number of other commentators, anyway) a good part of their credibility.

Yes, they are quite reputable: but also, in this case, they were utterly and uncompromisingly wrong. And, despite a number of letters written to them on the subject, their editorials continue to sing Stern’s praises long after even the BBC had started to realise just what a flawed document it was.

DK

So sorry for not responding more quickly; I had moved on to other things (and I do actually have a job to do).

Anyway, apart from anything else, you kept disputing the fact that the actual data that the “summaries for policy-makers” are based on have not been released. It is therefore difficult for me to go and check whether the data are reliable. Sending me a link to the “summary” does not alter that fact.

Having a scientific background — and knowing how science is politicised (a number of my relatives work as researchers, though mainly in the field of pathogens) — I like to study the original data and draw my conclusions from that data where possible.

As I pointed out, that the IPCC have decided to release four summaries before they release the data would tend to suggest that they are waiting of feedback from the “policymakers”, i.e. politicians, before they release the data. In this way — and using the “lies, damned lies and statistics” motto — one might then look at the data for evidence of political skewing in the presentation of that data.

If you have a problem, Douglas, then I suggest — as Katy did — that you debate with me at my place, and come out from “your wee friendly zone.”

Even leaving aside that it’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

Yes, and there are plenty of documents in which the “deniers” (as you choose to call them in a rather loaded manner) refute the refutations. The point is that there is still a debate going on over a number of aspects of this issue: there is, in fact, no concensus (other than that most scientists think that warming is happening: the causes are still very much open to debate).

As for the swearing… Well, that is my house style (I was extraordinarily angry when I started blogging in January ’95. And still am, to an extent) and a number of people very much enjoy it — indeed, feedback solicited from my readers has indicated that they like the style.

However, I know that some people find it offensive and unnecessary and so, when I am commenting in other people’s space, I do try not to swear. It would be very rude.

DK

I’ll be happy to pay a little extra when their is a proper solution, like recycling, etc

(1) It probably doesn’t help to call people “denialists”.

Maybe for those who don’t really understand or haven’t read much on the issue but for those that are organised or well briefed I think its a very good word. It describes them perfectly well.

Manmade disaster, only in the money we are wasting.

(1) It probably doesn’t help to call people “denialists”.

(2) What data has the IPCC published?

Point taken.

Katy, humble apologies. Love you really, shouldn’t have got wound up.

Apparently it’s an intelligent argument to suggest that I’m salivating over the New Scientist link because it has the word ‘scientist’ in it…. Even leaving aside that it’s a highly reputable magazine, he says nothing of the links actually refuting the global warming deniers.

You never know, DK may secretly be a top scientist and is fooling us all with his piss-poor attempt at fisking.

Last time I said that, you said I was the most intelligent poster on here (well, the sex bomb bit anyway!)

I was joshing with you then, when you took it in good faith, just as I am now. Please don’t take offence.

I don’t give a monkey’s for DK background in science, he is arguing against a clearly established consensus.

I am open to discussing it, he, apparently is not.

Seriously, thanks. It is not your fault that I can’t follow instructions until they are drummed into me!

No probs, you’re more than welcome.

Seriously, thanks. It is not your fault that I can’t follow instructions until they are drummed into me!

Re DK. No. If he ever made a good point, I missed it. He just comes across as a sweary tit. Fire with fire and all that.

I’m sure you didn’t mean it, Douglas, but that really is the second most patronising, dismissive, insulting, sexist thing that has ever been said to me on this website.

I don’t have an opinion on climate change because I don’t know very much about it. DK has a background in science and has done a huge amount of background reading. Insofar as I have an opinion on this topic, it is summarised in my post at 79 above.

I am amused, though, by your characterisation of DK as a coward. He came over to this blog to join a public debate on a subject that he is interested in. Then he blogged about it on his own blog, which has an unmoderated comments box in which anyone can say what they please – but you’re afraid to go over and take him on there in case you get a hard time from his “fans”. I am not sure how DK emerges as the coward in that scenario.

I wouldn’t be where I am today without you. And, as I hold this golden globe for web clarity in my hands, I remember the little people that got me here…

Thanks mate.